Kickstarter Is Not a Store

Share this post

It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one. Today we're introducing a number of changes to reinforce that Kickstarter isn’t a store — it’s a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things. We’d like to walk you through these changes now.

Creators must talk about “Risks and Challenges”

Today we added a new section to the project page called "Risks and Challenges." All project creators are now required to answer the following question when creating their project:

“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”

We added the "Risks and Challenges" section to reinforce that creators' projects are in development. Before backing a project, people can judge both the creator's ability to complete their project as promised and whether they feel the creator is being open and honest about the risks and challenges they face.

The new section will appear below the project description of projects that launch starting today.

New Hardware and Product Design Project Guidelines

The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and seductive to backers. Today we’re adding additional guidelines for Hardware and Product Design projects.

They are:

Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development.

Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

Products should be presented as they are. Over-promising leads to higher expectations for backers. The best rule of thumb: under-promise and over-deliver.

We've also added the following guideline for Hardware and Product Design projects:

Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

These guidelines are effective for all Hardware and Product Design projects that launch starting today.

We hope these updates reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a traditional retail experience and underline the uniqueness of Kickstarter. Thanks for reading, and thanks as always for using Kickstarter.

Kickstarter announced that it's prohibiting product renderings in the Hardware and Product Design categories, but "rendering" can mean a lot of things. What does Kickstarter mean?

To clarify, we mean photorealistic renderings of a product concept. Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process will continue to be allowed. Seeing the guts of the creative process is important. We love that stuff. However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited.

Do the new guidelines mean that Kickstarter will only accept Hardware and Product Design projects with finished products?

Not at all. We simply ask creators to share with backers exactly what’s been done so far, show how the product currently works, and explain how it will be completed. In short, we expect creators to show their work. Backers have shown that they're happy to get involved in projects that are in earlier stages when the creator is clear about the remaining work and their ability to complete it.

Do the new guidelines apply beyond Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products?

No. The new guidelines only apply to Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products. These guidelines do not apply to Design projects like the LowLine and +Pool or Hardware projects like Stompy: The Giant Rideable Walking Robot. Why? They aren’t developing new products that backers are expecting in their mailboxes.

How will Kickstarter know whether something is a simulation or rendering?

We may not know. We do only a quick review to make sure a project meets our guidelines. If an obvious simulation or photorealistic rendering is spotted during that review, that project will not be allowed to launch. If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled. Everyone should continue to use their best judgment when deciding whether or not to back a project.

Kickstarter announced that Hardware and Product Design rewards could only be offered in single quantities. What if my product works best as a pair or as a set of five?

As we noted in the announcement, sensible sets are fine. If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece. Creators will have to decide what works best for their project.

Final thoughts?

We created Kickstarter so more creative work could exist in the world, and last week's changes are in service of that mission. We're confident that these updates will lead to an even better Kickstarter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, and thanks for being a part of it!

Kickstarter recently "kicked-back" my project submission on the basis of these new guidelines citing specifically, that product renderings and simulations are not allowed. But my project had none of these things! Now I can't get anyone there to re-evaluate my project, or even to tell me what was wrong. I honestly think it was just a misunderstanding.

Please Kickstarter, I'm willing to play by your new rules--I'm just asking you to be fair to me too.

A sad, sad decision. This decision is SO misguided, and shows how out-of-touch the kickstarter team is with the maker subculture who supports many (most?) of the hardware projects.
Renderings are *good*. photo-realistic renderings are even better - with the quality of renderings today, it allows me to see how the product will really look - and that's important! This is especially true when considering plastic parts like housings or mechanical gizmos - they are made with injection molding, where you need thousands of dollars for every part to make the mold. With all due respect to hobbyist-level 3D printers (which I love) and CNC machined parts, they just don't look "slick" like true injection molded parts, and typically look bad and amateurish on pictures. It's important to show what you got (the CNC machined prototype for example) but I also like to see how you envision the final product - does it have a matte or a glossy finish? what colors? are the ends rounded? photo-realistic renderings will show you that, and typically nothing else will.

also, the rule of buying just one piece is simply lousy. This, alone, makes me rule out kickstarter as a potential platform to launch any new electronics-based project. The *whole point* of getting kickstarter funding for such a project, is to be able to make the board in the thousands, or more likely tens-of-thousands so the price of manufacturing comes down to a relevant level. This is vitally important for electronics manufacturing. Now, many of these projects would be purchased in multiple quantities by some potential customers - I suspect this will lower the total number of boards I get funding for by a factor of 2 or 3. just like that, you kill 50% to 75% of my potential funding. such a shame.

Hang in there Jack. I feel the same way- I dont think I can raise $30K in 25 days, $30. at a time, but I have to to be optimistic.

Now if they'll just approve my new pledges that offer only one item, but each pledge is for a different color item- instead of selling a set for a higher pledge, I be ready to hope for many, multiple pledges.

@ Peter Ghali - Same boat. I think if your video has anything that is 3D, photorealistic or not, it will get shot down.
I waited 2 days for a response to my appeal, but I seem to get a response soon after posting to this blog. or emailing the "help desk".

I've worked really hard to refrain from saying anything negative, but I really don't understand why they would change something that seems to have worked so well for so many, so I'm just gonna play along and hope for the best.

Hey Kickstarter, I have a question- if my campaign is raise money to produce 2 items that are meant to be used as a set, but one of the items can be used independently, can I offer the the items as a set and as individual pledge gifts?

Most hardware campaigns are for only item- please review my campaign again, more carefully before apply a blanket rule.

OK, products rendering and/or simulation may lead to higher expectations for backers. But what about the inside of a product, its technical guts.
Isn't it almost as risky and over-promising to demo a prototype done in a week time? Give me an Arduino board, access to a quick-prototyping machine and 10 feet of cheap chinese led-strip and I can build you a super-sexy prototype of an interactive lamp in a few days (30 days from initial idea to a said "product" almost ready to sale is a joke). But what when it comes to actually make it? And to manufacture it in large-scale?

As an inventor and business owner for 13 years now I am amazed with all that is available to new business's. I had only myself and home equity line to get started. 13 years and much wiser I understand both sides of the concern on the new rules. I also do business consulting to help anyone from the first inkling of an idea to getting a workable prototype made with costs known. Are business's like mine who are profitable with patented items but need monies to go to the next level allowed? As for allowing only 1 item that is rough as the production and pricing does demand an MOQ-Minimum quantity ordered and pricing is severly affected. Depending on the product not allowing to show the end use is also a huge hinderance making it only viable to enter when your product is done if the final result is what the product is going to be purchased for.. Difficult decisions on both ends but as a grown adult backing any of these projects we are well aware they are a true gamble and as long as the rules are clearly stated and risks clearly stated the final decision does fall on the benefactor. It is our job to do due diligence with the information provided by Kickstarter and the creator. Thank you

I like to consider myself as an early adopter of Kickstarter with over 250 projects backed in a span of about 2 years. Within those 2 years I have had many rewarding experiences and some unpleasant experiences. While the changes to Kickstarter were meant as good intentions I believe it was not well thought out. Let me focus on a few points:

1) The Risk and Challenges Sections is flawed. - Let's takes the FORM 1 project for example. They create a Risks and Challenges section based on their goal of 100,000 and when the R & C section was created it was formulated based on the 100,000 goal. Now that the project has exceeded their goal by 20x don't you think that the R & C section needs to revisited or revised? Any person that has ran a business will tell you when you get 20x your expected orders the risks and challenges greatly change as well. Kickstarter needs to require projects creators to modify their R & C section when they are greatly exceeding their original goal to reflect the true Risks and Challenges based certain intervals of over-funding. In addition many of the R & C sections that I am seeing are very vague in scope. It's important that we see facts and concrete details to make it a useful tool for backers to properly vet projects.

2) Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. - Since this rule has came in effect it has prevented me from backing several projects that offered low cost rewards because I was not able to get them in multiple quantities to make it worth my wild. Instead I would recommend that you to make it where multiple awards could not be packaged if the cost of the original items were not over set amount - say 50 dollars. In my case the project creator could not offer packs of pencils because of the rules - that is simply ridiculous.

Now that backers are starting to experience more and more disappointment with delayed and failed projects it's time for Kickstarter to step up to the plate and implement a better user experience. Here are a few things that you they can do:

1) Educate and guide the project creators to create realistic delivery estimates. Everyone that has participated in Kickstarter for sometime know that project creators create very optimistic (often unrealistic) delivery dates. Ninety percent of my projects have been delayed for one reason or another. Another trend that I am seeing currently is that many of the projects are promising rewards in time for Christmas - many of those backers are going to be disappointed. Kickstarter should help project creators create realistic delivery times.

2) Improve the comments section - Current users resort to using twitter notation to communicate to one another which is hard to follow. Also, if I ask a question to a backer of a project backer (in the comment section) it gives me no way to flag it as a question. Also, allow the answer underneath the question instead of it getting lost pages of comments . Allow users to like posts that they see insightful or beneficial. Also, give users some time to edit their posts for misspellings and typos. There is so much you can do to facilitate the flow of communication in the comments section.

3) Make project creators accountable for failed projects - If a project has failed and have not refunded the funds back to the backers then Kickstarter should provide the project creator's contact information to the requested backer so they can communicate the project creator directly. Also, please verify the identity of your project creators. I am part of a failed project where the project creator went by a one word alias - Bushing. Since he used an alias with Kickstarter he has no shame to his friends and family because of his failed project.

4) Kickstarter needs to take responsibility for failed projects - I understand the risk that I take when backing projects. There is nothing guaranteed and I understand that. But the 5% commission Kickstarter gets from the project creator is always guaranteed. How could Kickstarter in good conscience accept that money on a failed project? It would be a great PR move if Kickstarter would donated the funds that they received from failed projects to a reputable non profit. Nothing disturbs me more than the notion that Kickstarter is benefiting monetarily from misfortunes of others.

I am new to kickstarter and have yet to launch my first project. In fact, I can't even get it launched. I believe I have completed everything asked of me in the launch process, but when I get to "review and submit", I am kicked back to the rewards page and requested to enter shipping options. I do that and "save", but again when I get to "review and submit" this cycle repeats itself. I have not been able to find a way to contact Kickstarter to help solve this problem. Can someone please help steer me in the right direction?

I agree to one and all who have commented against the Rendering and Multiple piece rule. I just want to sum up that KickStarter should follow the KISS principles, have some more disclaimers and terms and conditions in place and if not already, make sure that only 18+ join this site. Otherwise if they want to be a MySpace and give the facebook's of the world a chance, than nothing could be more KickStarting than that.
Let me tell KickStarter if they dont already know, that many people have their products ready when they come here, and come here only for volume orders for their first production run, and that there products are usually not unique or anything especial, just that they have a differrent price point and cheaper, smaller etc than their closest relatives. By restricting them is a fatal error. Imagine Digispark going to someother website for volume orders. It will take with itself 10 other similar products along with. So if Kickstarter does not want to swing an axe on its legs, oh rather swing its legs on an axe, they better leave it to the inventors and the backers and be happy with the 5% or whatever they make.

And two brains are better than one, more better than a few. Why do they not take a poll to make sure of what people want. And the following should be an eyeopener, in case kickstarter is starting to think its the only one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crowd_funding_services#Money_for_goodsand if they still feel that "we are not a store" why allow people to even order a single peice. Let them just help with $1 thank-yous and stickers and t-shirts. If I go to a store and order just one peiece does that make the store a church?

My campaign is 7 days underway and I honestly believe the "No multiple pieces" rule is killing my chances of successful funding. I've already had multiple requests for this, to which I have to respond, sorry, the new rules don't allow it. Serious bummer.

I do not like these changes. You say kickstarter isn't a store, but people treat it that way. Whats so wrong with it being like a store where the buyer assumes all the risks and has no recourse in the event that they don't get what they paid for? People know that when they "donate" there is no guarantee that they get what they are paying for. You do realize that these rules would have hurt so many good projects that have already been funded if they were in place right?

Reaper Bones, Planetary Annihilation, Ouya, I mean come on here. Someone at kickstarter should be fired over this, and the changes should be reversed.

I can understand to a point why they want to limit the number of items you can offer as a reward but as someone who is creating a project I feel that it may be a detriment to my project. My product is such that a backer may want more than one and they make great gifts so offering more than one make sense. I am very disappointed with this change.

As an investor who has supported several Kickstarter projects so far, I think it's terribly short sighted to restrict entrepreneurs from offering a multiple item reward level as a backer inventive. I want to buy 2 units (devices) from one developer. I'm willing to pedge the $$ necessary and I'd like a quantity discount. Because this developer is restricted from offering such a deal, he may not get my backing.

"No multiple pieces"... unless I misunderstand, you can in fact make a pledge for multiple items or rewards, but the creator cannot offer these multiples as a "package" deal, the intent of which has always been clearly ( to me as a backer at least) to provide quantity discounts. Often these packages just screamed RESALE! You can pledge to receive as many items (for the same price) as you want. That seems totally obvious to me..... or am I totally confused?

Also, most of you are way overthinking the "rendering" thing.... maybe because I'm not an inventor I see this very clearly. A rendering (to me) is a realistic representation of an item that makes it look REAL, like a finished product. Seems to me that you can present as many drawings, sketches, or models of an item as you'd like, as long as what you present doesn't make it appear to be something it's not, namely a FINISHED product. A 3-D model or prototype would simply need to be labeled with "Here's what we envision the finished product will look like, but we don't have a working model yet." The goal of the "rendering" rule is transparency. It's really that simple.

Superbacker

I'm well aware that kickstarter wrote a blog detailing that it is not 'a store'.

Problem is, it is both and not. IT is not in the sense that you are not 100% certain that you actually get a return on your investment (which makes it even more important for project creators to get and maintain goodwill from investors), but as far as taxes are concerned it's about goods being bought from companies. You try and argue your way around the law about that specific detail and tell us how it goes. In my country they didn't want anyone trying to claim random loopholes by claims of not purchasing their purchases to evade import taxation and have deemed it as being regular taxable/tollable purchases.

You require projects to describe risks and challenges, and project creators to give detailed accounts of their personal qualifications. Yet you hide your comments behind unrecognizable (as KS employees) names, don't tell the community of substantial policy changes before you implement them, and don't give the real reasons for the changes that you have enforced -- just platitudes about "not being a store" (an argument which many have already refuted as nonsensical).

When I first got involved with KS, as a backer, I and others complained of an open project (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1747147409/projektor-make-your-mobile-devices-larger-than-lif) that was clearly just someone seeking easy cash with no intent of delivering and no chance of the project succeeding. Your response then was "buyer beware" and that it was not KS policy to "police" projects, that it was the backers' responsibility to determine the likelihood of success before backing.

Now you have gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction with the poorly though-out rules.

And you are being hypocritical because you are unreasonably applying these rules to just a few "categories" of projects.

There is no difference between a product designer communicating her vision through a photorealistic rendering and a filmmaker communicating his vision through a trailer. They are both essential parts of the creative process and also of the fund raising process.

There is no difference between offering multiple quantities of a product and multiple quantities of a game as rewards.

In short, you are discriminating against a narrow subset of projects. You are doing so without giving any legitimate reasons for doing so. If you don't wan't KS to be a platform for the creative realization of products, then simply eliminate those categories from your site and let those projects find other avenues for crowd funding. Don't try to squeeze them out.

I was once a big proponent of KS but my experience has been going south fast since these rules were created. After my project closes I will definitely be leaving a review at http://crowdsunite.com .

My own disappointment is echoed dozens of times in the comments before mine, so I won't elaborate much.

As a past project creator with hopes to launch more projects on Kickstarter, it saddens me to see changes that threaten to hurt the chances of success for creative projects (especially when targeted specifically toward hardware and design).

My hopes are that you listen to your community, to the project creators and supporters that make Kickstarter possible, and reconsider these changes.

Actually. it kind of is. If people didn't treat it that way, Kickstarter would never have been as successful as it is. The vast majority of people only fund projects because they want something, not because they are interested in supporting a new venture or concept.

Does anybody believe that nearly as much money would have been contributed without the promise of "rewards"?

It is rather shameful to ignore the now hundreds of people are who again the new rules. Since they came out i have passed on a few things now until yesterday when i caved and pledged for the Spark http://kck.st/RAc4Ds which i would prefer to pledge for more than one. I now feel compelled to voice my displeasure. Even more now than before i can say that i am against the new multiple items rule and also i am not pleased with how the rendering and simulations rule was done either, it will lead to inferior products as far as i can see.

I think not allowing the rendering is a mistake. You have to be able to show your vision.

I believe that as long as it's clearly labeled "concept" , "simulation", etc., then it should be no problem. You can even put it on the screen or image in big letters so there is no mistake. But with design, you definitely need to be able to show your vision to potential backers.

If anything it's easier to fake something by building boxes and mounting lights on them than it is to do renderings anyway, so this rendering argument is about a whole bunch of nothing. It looks like Kickstarter isn't going to listen to the backers, either, who really really want multiples.

Kickstarter needs to make up its mind. It either takes a responsibility to ensure that every offer presented is completed as stated or it stays out of the way. The idea that an upstart cannot offer more than one item in a reward tier is stupid. Is offering three of an item more likely to be faulted on than only one? No. Let those who come to KS to find funding for their projects offer rewards in any way or number they choose. It is those who fund them that are taking the risk and we know it. Every project has a chance to fail with no rewards promised given. We all know that. So which is it KS? Are you going to be liable or not? If not, then let project creators offer what they want.

I am also one who disagrees with the no multiple items rule. Many time I back smaller projects for multiple items as a way to show interest in the item and to help the creators get that much closer to their goal. Without the ability to offer multiple items to one backer many of these Kickstarters would fail.

As someone else also said many of these smaller Kickstarters are most likely not going to be an ongoing project so I would never otherwise have the ability to get their items.

Someone else suggested asking your backers what they think of your changes. I certainly hope someone from Kickstarter is reading these comments and seriously considering changing them back.

Superbacker

Wow, these rules are a mixed bag. Yes, "Kickstarter is not a Store" in that we're investing in startups that may succeed or fail, may change their designs, etc., while a store has final products in stock.

The "risks and challenges" is a great idea - making sure that people know that they're investing in a potential, not buying a product. Good. I've seen this on projects already, and it's been helpful.

And not showing photo-realistic renderings is a good idea, since it will avoid raising unrealistic expectations. But there are certainly cases where a rendering (with a clear disclaimer) is the right way to communicate plans. For example, if a startup has completed a product design and is raising funding to pay for the tooling, a rendering of the design is a better indicator of the final product than line drawings. Perhaps you should require a clear disclaimer embedded in the graphic, not in the surrounding text, where people could miss it?

But not not offering multiples in rewards makes no sense. First, I don't see how it's bad for Kickstarter to have projects offer rewards of different levels at different quantities. There are many great products (e.g. pebble, pens) where it's entirely reasonable to offer a range of rewards with different quantities, and prohibiting that would have caused real problems for those projects. For example, a project selling pens could reasonably offer one pen, or a set of pens in different colors to consumers, or a bulk order for stores or wholesalers. And given that people want flexibility to scale their investment, in this respect it's fine (IMO) for Kickstarter to feel more like a store, not less. Yes, it should be done in a way that doesn't give people unrealistic expectations of risk - if it feels like a store people may feel like they're buying products "off the shelf", but rather than pre-ordering future products with the risk that entails. I think that it would be more appropriate to let projects continue to offer different rewards levels with different quantities, but instead address the expectation issue directly.

As an alternative, let me suggest that there's another aspect of quantity that projects have had trouble with, which is total orders. You might want to allow projects to put a "cap" on the quantities that they are prepared to offer, as a total across all rewards. There are many physical product startups that have run into trouble when hit with 10x the unit demand that they were prepared for. I double that they would complain as that's a great problem to have, but it certainly added project risk and delay as the founders rework their designs and plans to scale up.

As a consumer, I thought I'd just add to what's looking almost like a petition on here.

Risks and Challenges: Could be detrimental to creators' bottom line (unless things go wrong... helps them avoid lawsuits), ethically a good idea, beneficial to consumers. I think this policy is just fine.

So now that these changes have demonstrably killed the Technology section (just 59 projects live currently) and everyone angry about only being able to get one of a product. will things change?
Oh, and it is EVEN MORE of a shop now - half the tech projects are simply existing products being kickstarter'd by the manufacturer!

Just seen that these rules are real, and not imagined my some more creative commenters. Both rules are a nonsense, and clearly designed to protect idiots who have no place making these impositions on the real designers trying to use this platform.

This has greatly discouraged me from wanting to be involved with kickstarter any more.

As a backer of a few Kickstarter projects as well as an intended creator, the no-multiple restriction is very disconcerting to me. I do not believe that allowing an investor to decide to put more of his/her money at risk for a chance at more rewards turns Kickstarter into a store; it provides more flexibility and greater opportunities. As a creator, there is the potential for more opportunities which could result in the project benefiting from economies of scale; for backers, there are more opportunities to receive greater rewards. If anything, allowing "Early Bird" pledges makes Kickstarter more store-like, yet as far as I know, this is not prohibited (nor should it be, in my opinion).

I also completely disagree that allowing multiple rewards affects a project's level of integrity.I believe that a reasonable adult can make the distinction between backing a concept and ordering a shrink-wrapped product. If I believe in a creator's vision, why shouldn't I be allowed to take a bigger risk while at the same time helping him/her with additional funds? Maybe gambling casinos should limit people to placing only one bet?

While I imagine that there's some legal justification for limiting quantities, and I am sure that the decision was made with good intentions, this decision hurts the people that Kickstarter is supposed to help. I think that far more harm than good will be the result. Kickstarter - please, please reconsider this policy.

No multiple items? In almost every kickstarter project I've been part of I've had multiples of the same item (L8 smartlight, Bolt Pen, Knut, 99 Shades of Grey). This is going to be a real pain for me as a backer and I already see it being painful for the project owners.

And no renderings? Oh yes. Kickstarter is going to strangle itself here. Maybe kickstarter funding for an alternative to kickstarter would be good dying move.

I think this new rule about renderings is a bad one. Force them to add a disclaimer if you feel you must, but renders should be allowed for ALL projects. We are visual creatures and renders assist greatly in imagining what the

I find this totally bizarre. Most product launches are made much more feasible in quantity, prohibiting multiple rewards just creates more distance between an enthusiastic backer and a potential product. I'm about to set up a new project involving a small cast iron tool, and the math on a production run becomes much friendlier with larger quantities. Which means that I, as well as anyone who wants one of my product, will be better served the more rewards are requested. Also, who's to say that I'm the only one who knows how my idea could be used? Someone may look at my project and realize the potential of using multiples. Seems really unnecessary to do this.

As for renderings, just ask for a disclaimer -- clearly the goal here is to avoid deception, but I can get a fantastic prototype made and take beautiful photos, and it doesn't mean it works. The issue isn't the image, it's the representation behind the image. Allowing "CAD images" but not "renderings" seems utterly arbitrary.